I know that art REALLY matters to me. It's a large reason I'm with Pathfinder and not anyone else, they consistently have great art across the board.
There's a lot of art in Pathfinder books that I don't like whether it be to quality of artist or subject matter (eg. which spells to show (if it were up to me I'd like to see a representation of every spell!), but I like way more than I don't.
That's more than I can say for WOTC with their recent D&D art. I LOVE some of the stuff they do and artists they choose (i.e. Steve Prescott, WAR) but there's a lot of subpar and unimaginative work.
I can't say how many times have I seen the same "Sneaky Thief" in a D&D product and a completely revitalized, re-imagined rogue/assassin in Pathfinder (Mantis Assassin). Golems, goblins, misfits of all shapes get the PAIZO, PATHFINDER treatment. And I love it.
When I look at a lot of the work out there (and sometimes in here too, I'll not be precious) I see mostly bad. And it saddens me because good art, or at least memorable art can bring a good product to great.
-Jeremy
A picture says a thousand words. And a few spells used properly warrent a one-thousand word description ; )
Art is significant in how I see the game. If I dont like the art I then struggle with the game itself.
Its like watching a movie then reading the book.
Art helps sell books. And more sales means cheaper books for me. So in that sense, I'm all for it.
I was recently looking through some of my old World of Darkness books. It's cool to see how the art style carries though the different products. It sort of carries the theme for the series. Same goes for the old planescape setting. Consistent art really adds to the experience.
Hugely important to me. I run my game online using D20Pro, so my presentation has the privilege of being graphically intensive. Paizo doesn't just provide color maps and high-quality, (largely) consistent art for all of the significant NPCs and creatures, they also provide the digital tools (PDFs) to easily make use of that artwork. I've literally bought PDFs of books I already own just to grab the art.
I love great art it's very important to me and I think Pathfinder is doing a fine job with it. I love the art for the new releases coming out, and that Pathfinder shows blood in some of their art is awesome. The art keeps getting better and better! Keep em' coming Paizo. Small things like that set Pathfinder apart from other games. Writing is very important to me as well, and when you mix both and get good results that leads to awesome products. Color, art, writing, these things done well will create strong product.
|
To me, art helps with envisioning certain aspects of the game, but a good description is much better than a picture. Art is too easy of a crutch to rely upon. I'd much rather envision something with my own minds eye than someone else's - which is why I tend to avoid seeing movies based upon books that I've read; with a few exceptions...
Bad art won't make me ignore a good game, but good art will make me pay attention to a bad game. I think it's mostly good to pull people in with....
I was going to say I'm completely uninterested in the art, but this is much more accurate. Decent pictures will hold my interest, even if the game is slightly dull or poor in some other respect. I dont care if the games I like are all text though.
.That said, I'm a big fan of maps/figures/handouts/visual aids/etcetera and for these decent art is (pretty obviously) a huge plus.
When I saw "art" in the title, my mind immediately went to the idiotic "artistic integrity" argument of the Mass Effect 3 developers, so my feeling about it was "not a damn lot".
Then I read the text of your post and saw that you meant "artwork". And, yes, that matters quite a bit for the enjoyment of, say, the Bestiary books or the adventure path modules.
I think art is quite important especially for bestiaries or people that do not have english as a first language, a single picture can tell more like several pages of text ever could and in a fraction of the time, but it has to be good art or it will have an adverse effect, much like a bad movie of a book you loved to read.
|
Art is very important. Helps to showcase a setting / character and helps to bring the world to life. Does it make up for bad rules? Nope. But when it is done well and is consistent throughout it feels like you have glimpses into another world. Pathfinder has really done an excellent job in this regard. I have a mixture of hard and electronic copy and they are presented well in both cases.
Anytime I am looking at a new set of core rules, I'm looking at artwork when standing in the store. I'm not reading the rules (unless my wife is extra patient that day). Once a stylization has developed, when I'm looking at additional supplements, I really like to see and feel that it is part of the same visual world of the other work. Can it change from time to time? Sure, but if you suddenly change everything about your artwork it makes us wonder if something is wrong and I am less likely to buy it until I figure out why there was such a drastic style change.
I will add that the artwork in a book gives, in general, a surprisingly through impression of the mindset of the developers, you can make a snap decision wether the game's style appeals to you or not.
I instantly took a dislike on 4th edition based on the artwork I first saw of the forgotten realms, sometimes art look to cheerful/colorful which makes the impression it isn't well suited for mature play, likewise manga-like art can tell alot about the developers tastes.
Given that traditionally RPGs relied on the imaginations of the players, I think good art adds a lot to gaming, helping players visualize the people, creatures, and environments.
While I won't refuse to look at a game with lousy art, I have to say that given the huge number of gaming products released, a striking piece of artwork on the cover has a better chance to make me stop and actually take a look at what it is all about. Which is how I found the Pathfinder books (thanks to Wayne Reynolds covers).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excellent art will not make up for bad mechanics. Conversely, BAD art is worse than no art at all.
Good, relevant art that supplements without overshadowing is the ideal.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How much does art really matter to you
Art is seldom a deal-maker or -breaker by itself, but I do judge art quality when evaluating an RPG book. It can influence my opinion at least of how well a book is put together, and whether I will keep an eye out for future products by the same company.
Now, if the game itself sucks, not gonna get it no matter how pretty it is, as SlimGauge notes.
And if I am already familiar with a system and I like it, I will buy the product absolutely regardless of art quality.
BUT if I am looking at a system for the first time and the art is distracting because it's bad or poorly placed, then it may influence my decision to put the book down and not give the system a chance--mostly just because I have trouble reading the system because of the poor design.
Furthermore, if a product contains artwork I personally find offensive -- women are only portrayed as sexualized victims and never as heroes (the infamous half-naked ritual sacrifice victim, for example); offensive racial stereotyping, etc. -- then I absolutely will not buy the product because I do not back with money things that encourage values I consider negative and hurtful. If I heard someone on the street call someone a derogatory name and then ask me to buy the wares they were selling, I wouldn't, so I wouldn't do any sort of equivalent.
Other considerations for artwork that may influence my purchase/support:
- Does it look like a non-artist scribbled a sketch and scanned it in?
I've seen a lot of 3rd party/low budget game books who feel the need to have artwork but obviously cannot afford a good pro artist. And so they publish clearly amateur (figures are disproportionate, etc.) or low res/low quality drawings or both, which dramatically brings down the quality of the publication.
I would honestly prefer simple, clean line drawings or even meticulously chosen clip art/stock art/stock photos than badly drawn artwork -- or even no art at all. If you lay out your book well, I may notice there's no artwork, but I will respect it more than if you insert a picture of ridiculously scaled adventurers that look like you paid your 9 year old sister 50 cents to draw it for you.
- Does it have anything to do with what's on the page?
Picture needs to be close to the text talking about what's depicted. I get annoyed by artwork in RPG books that doesn't actually illustrate anything to do with what's happening.
- Has it been shoved into the layout willy nilly or does it use the space wisely?
is one of my own separate but related aesthetic gripes, actually. If you can't layout the page that I can't easily follow the text, then I'm definitely not going to buy the book. Placement of artwork within the layout is part of this issue as well. If the artwork is placed such that it actually truncates a paragraph, making it harder to read, or otherwise distracts from the text, I'm not going to appreciate its presence, no matter how beautiful it is.
Likewise if artwork makes the page too "busy," that's no good. Usually artwork when used well is used to break up text to keep it from being monotonous, but if there's a picture and a table and a sidebar and barely any text between, that looks awful--and also goes back to, "does this addition of artwork make the text hard to read?" If yes, then bad.
- Are the artistic styles consistent with each other?
I am not too much of a stickler over style per se. Certainly there are styles of artwork I prefer more than others according to my personal aesthetic, but I won't refuse to buy a book just because the artwork isn't my favorite kind, especially if it's otherwise obviously high quality (high res, good use of color (or grayscale chiaroscuro), well placed in the layout, etc. etc.).
But it does bug me if a publisher has hired obviously several different artists who have very different, conflicting styles of artwork. If on the first page I see a gorgeous painted piece of pseudo-realistic fantasy artwork, and on the next page I see a cel-painted-style piece of Japanese-comic-style art, and then on the next page after that I see your 9 year old sister's disproportionate adventuring party in pencil sketch, then no. I'm okay with differing styles--every artist does things a little differently--as long as they are still complimentary. Think about how a museum curator might arrange paintings on a wall. He may put Matisse and another expressionist together, even though Matisse's picture has stronger colors and the other expressionist has sharper, darker, cleaner lines, but they still compliment each other in some way. But a curator will probably not put an Andy Warhol next to Da Vinci (unless they're specifically trying to make a point) -- both good artists, but their artwork will probably distract from each other and make each piece harder to appreciate.
Good post DeathQuaker.
For, me, art (including layout, fonts and editing) makes or breaks the game. Or should I say, its a bit like the "curriculum vitae" of a game. If it manages to catch my attention, it will get an "interview". It fails to impress me at first glance, the game doesn't stand a chance with me, regardless of its content.
That being said, I'm more impressed with coherency, good taste and pertinence of art rather that stunningly complex paintings and renderings. Sketches can go a long way in my book, as long as they are done "professionally". Quick and simple aquarelles can achieve a stunning result as a whole, even if the plates taken individually can be rather blend.
Then comes the "theme" presented by art. Art can easily become a game's (or a setting's) signature, so choose your art wisely.
'findel
Art is also good for someone who is having trouble imagining a scene or monster. Art goes hand in hand with Roleplaying games.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Style and quality aside, presentation is huge for me. I dont care for the epic pose that has become popular. I would rather see people doing things in a village, cave, or on a ship in the ocean. Scenes tend to get my imagination going. I like to imagine whats going on there and then write up a story for my players. I miss the old pictures of monsters too attacking adventures or soldiers to demonstrate their abilities and tactics. Please lay off the dude with perfect hair and surf board sized sword looking like hes taking a high school year book photo. Gimme context please!
Brother, you ain't seen anime weaponry in PF.
It can get treacherously close, but I agree that other games are worst offenders. I actually find Pathfinder's art quite stunning (I'm sure I'm not alone). Actually, that's what sold Pathfinder as a "serious" system for me during its Alpha stage. That's a good example of a game's artistic signature and coherent artistic direction.
|
Bad art won't make me ignore a good game, but good art will make me pay attention to a bad game. I think it's mostly good to pull people in with, but then again some people refuse to play certain races or classes simply because of the art associated with it.
Basically this for me. If I am already a fan or like the company/product, then art is just a bonus if it is good. But good art can make me take a second look at a product or inspire my imagination which then makes me take a second look at a product I would have otherwise ignored.
So in short. Bad art won't stop me from buying something I was interested in anyways, but good art can make me buy something I might not have otherwise.
My stance on this is very similar to DQ's - I might be less offended by half-naked female ritual sacrifice, however ;)
Very bad art common amongst 3pp d20 products, especially in times of early 3rd edition was off-puting for me - the creators of many books were putting graphic monstrosities showing their unwillingness to maintain any degree of quality of their work, which they could do by simply not forcibly adding those graphics.
I am also easily discouraged by poor layout, especially if it is worse than anything I can make myself in Open Office/Google Docs. Really, it's not that hard to pick decent font type and size and make clean headers.
I could stand for a lot less fanservice, but I like having art in products, especially for important NPCs and monsters. Otherwise I'm on par with DQ's post I think.
|
|
The first thing I do whenever I get a new paizo book is to flip through it and stare at the art. I love it. Especially the fact that the bestiary has individual art for pretty much every monster in there (with the exception of dinosaurs, but...ah well, you can't win them all). I actually really like the Pathfinder art style, and it was one of the things that first drew me to the game in the first place. Plus, all of the books are beautifully illustrated to the point where I don't feel stupid for buying a 32-page booklet for the price of, lessay, a George R.R. Martin paperback. The latter may have more content but the former...well, lets say the art is definitely worth it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like monster art but want more landscape scenes to know what the land looks like.
As a Virtual Gaming Table (VGT) user primarily, art is the #1 feature that sets Paizo adventure paths and modules apart. I subscribed to the modules line (when I could afford it) even though I had no intention of running those modules specifically, just for the character, object and map art.
Like others, I have my issues with some of the artists, and sometimes the content crosses the "chainmail bikini" line (on realism/grittiness, not moral sanctimony). But overall, art is a huge factor in my commitment to Pathfinder. I definitely notice when an AP volume has a notable NPC who isn't depicted... I have to go to google image search!
Honestly, I'd be happier without the interruptions in the presentation of information. Yeah, the combat section needs examples. But beyond that?
Sure, splash something across chapter headings... but don't keep interrupting the layout with portraits. The rogue presented in the CRB obviously doesn't pursue Acrobatics -- not in THAT get-up. The Assassin's crossbow? Not functional.
I get that lots of people enjoy these drawings, and am resigned to it. But thought I'd answer the question honestly: the art in rulebooks just irritates me.
EDIT: Bestiaries, grudgingly, ought to have illustrations, I guess.
|
My view on RPG art is that it should be like a great film score: cohesive with the whole, charmingly or grandly memorable but mostly unobtrusive, and internally consistent.
If I had a complaint about the Pathfinder art it would be that it strays too far from my preferred medieval-European aesthetic.
If I had a complaint about the Pathfinder art it would be that it strays too far from my preferred medieval-European aesthetic.
Well, so does the entire game, but that's a common complaint. Other games exist which scratch that itch quite precisely. But without Antiquity before and the Renaissance after, "medieval" doesn't mean much of anything!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had a complaint about the Pathfinder art it would be that it strays too far from my preferred medieval-European aesthetic.Well, so does the entire game, but that's a common complaint. Other games exist which scratch that itch quite precisely. But without Antiquity before and the Renaissance after, "medieval" doesn't mean much of anything!
Complaint? It's a positive aspect for many. Down with the spread of pseudo western medieval European aesthetics! We want Sword And Sorcery!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't much care if artwork is involved in a product. Actually, scratch that; I prefer art to not be included in a product. I often find that rules are only partially complete or wording is chosen for formatting purposes and there would be a lot more space in books to flesh things out without needing to make room for artwork to gobble up pages and/or artificially expand a book.
|
|
The Swordbearer, Ars-Magica, Chivalry and Sorcerer games are three doors down that way and hang a right ---------->My view on RPG art is that it should be like a great film score: cohesive with the whole, charmingly or grandly memorable but mostly unobtrusive, and internally consistent.
If I had a complaint about the Pathfinder art it would be that it strays too far from my preferred medieval-European aesthetic.
I'd cast a spell on you for that, but I'm out of Vis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why anyone would want just a bland book of rules with no art. Talk about dull, boring, and lame. Without art these books would be as interesting as a school text books. The art is there for a reason, if you don't know why yet than I wonder why you're even playing RPG games to begin with. I question your motif. I think some people are just on forums to oppose people, start flamewars and arguements. No art in an RPG book is like a PEZ dispenser with no candy in it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not looking for pictograms when I access my rulebooks, I'm looking for RULES. I.e., written explanations about how the game works. When I DO notice the artwork, it's usually because some artist without a background in arms and armor has screwed the pooch depicting an adventurer's gear-out. Irritating, which imo is worse than boring.
I have plenty of imagination: I have <0 need for artwork to get excited about playing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why anyone would want just a bland book of rules with no art. Talk about dull, boring, and lame. Without art these books would be as interesting as a school text books. The art is there for a reason, if you don't know why yet than I wonder why you're even playing RPG games to begin with. I question your motif. I think some people are just on forums to oppose people, start flamewars and arguements. No art in an RPG book is like a PEZ dispenser with no candy in it.
I think that is a bit extreme...
I mean, TSR's "motto" as it were in the 70's and 80's, was "Product's of your imagination". In fact, those early books (pre 1st edition) had very little art, and I would hardly call those books dull, boring, or lame...
Also, comparatively speaking, AD&D (1st edition), aside from the Monster Manual, also had very little in the way of art. Again, hardly dull, boring, or lame in my estimation...
Further, 2nd edition, aside from the bright shiny covers, had very little in the way of art interior-wise. Now granted, they contained more than say the 1st edition books had, but what art that was there usually consisted of small "clip-art" style images prior to the 1995 update; and even then most of the sourcebooks and modules remained light in the way of art...
In my opinion, a good description is much better than a picture (I mean look at novels; are they filled with pretty pictures?)... I'd much rather use my own imagination and mind's eye to envision something than to look at someone else’s interpretation of it...
Obviously I'm in the minority with this view, but I'm hardly holding it to just to be argumentative...
YMMV and all that...
I'd cast a spell on you for that, but I'm out of Vis.The Swordbearer, Ars-Magica, Chivalry and Sorcerer games are three doors down that way and hang a right ---------->My view on RPG art is that it should be like a great film score: cohesive with the whole, charmingly or grandly memorable but mostly unobtrusive, and internally consistent.
If I had a complaint about the Pathfinder art it would be that it strays too far from my preferred medieval-European aesthetic.
You admit your intent to hurt a fellow Hermetic without formally declaring a Wizard's War on him? Shame on you! Shame and a visit from Quasitors!